Former U. S. Senator Bob Graham was interviewed on Fox News, on the subject “Why were portions of Congressional report on 9/11 kept secret?” “Is there a connection between the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi government?” asks Fox Business News “The Independents” in the December 18th interview.
It began almost with an apology: “This is not a 9/11 Truther segment — please know that. We are not conspiracy theorists — we don’t have time for that brand of nonsense.” They went on to say that there are very important issues of accountability and secrecy involved here, and on that, “we want some answers.”
Graham said the essential question is whether 19 hijackers, most of whom didn’t speak English, could have lived in the U.S. without being detected, to have practiced and executed such a complicated plot without any outside support. Most people who’ve looked at it think that’s highly unlikely. The central question of the 28 pages is, who financed and paid for the 19 hijackers to stay in the U.S. and accomplish the mission they were assigned? “If more than 3 out of 4 of the hijackers were Saudi, there might be an assumption that there was some relationship between their financing and Saudi interests.”
He said there are real consequences to withholding of this information, for the victims families who can’t get access to the courts because they haven’t had access to the evidence, and we’ve had our foreign policy relationships distorted. “We’ve operated under the assumption that nations that have in fact been very perfidious, were our loyal allies.”
Saudi Ambassador to UK Threatens, “Saudi Arabia Will Go It Alone”
An op-ed in the New York Times Dec. 18, in which Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Britain, Prince Mohammed Bin Nawaf Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, threatens that the Kingdom will “go it alone,” is an indication of the tremendous international pressure that the Saudis are feeling on the issue of supporting Jihadi terrorists and the 9/11 exposes, reported a senior U.S. intelligence source.
“We believe that many of the West’s policies on both Iran and Syria risk the stability and security of the Middle East. This is a dangerous gamble, about which we cannot remain silent, and will not stand idly by,” writes Mohammed bin Nawaf, echoing recent statements of Bandar bin Sultan, Turki al Faisal and other top Saudi royals.
The U.S. intelligence source added that there has been an another, less publicized, pressure point on the Saudis: an unexpected challenge by a combination of OPEC member countries — Libya, Iraq, and Iran — challenging the Saudis for hogging OPEC production quotas. Under the increased sanctions imposed on Iran that largely took Iranian oil out of the market, the Saudis made up the difference, and were given a quota increase to 12 million barrels a day — a figure so large that they have not even been meeting it. Yet, when Libya, Iraq, and now Iran demanded that their own quotas be increased because of domestic economic needs, the Saudis balked. The Saudis blame the OPEC members’ demands on the U.S. easing of Iran sanctions.
Mohammed bin Nawaf’s op-ed is the most explicit threat that Saudi Arabia will pursue a separate policy from its usual Anglo-American line, but it is largely a hollow threat that came on the heels of a meeting of the “Friends of Syria” that told the rebels and their backers that Assad may remain in power.
The most outrageous feature is the ambassador’s open defense of Al Qaeda in Syria, and his putting the blame for Al Qaeda’s growth on the U.S. and the West for not financing the opposition — when it has been the Saudi’s financing of the Syrian rebels that has built up Al Qaeda.
“We have global responsibilities — economic and political — as the world’s de facto central banker for energy (emphasis added),” Mohammed bin Nawaf writes, and promises that Saudi Arabia will continue to support the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian opposition.
“It is too easy for some in the West to use the threat of Al Qaeda’s terrorist operations in Syria as an excuse for hesitation and inaction. Al Qaeda’s activities are a symptom of the international community’s failure to intervene. They should not become a justification for inaction.”